No more Street Photography?

The exemption for photographs of architecture has been in UK law since at least the 1911 Copyright Act, BTW
 
KIPAX said:
No it wouldn't
Click to expand...
Au contraire. When you upload photos to, for example, Facebook, you are confirming acceptance of their terms and conditions, one of which requires YOU to confirm that you have the full uninhibited copyright of the image.
When Facebook get sued for commercial use of an unlicensed photograph, they will be able to pursue the uploader for costs.
 
Llamaman said:
Au contraire. When you upload photos to, for example, Facebook, you are confirming acceptance of their terms and conditions, one of which requires YOU to confirm that you have the full uninhibited copyright of the image.
When Facebook get sued for commercial use of an unlicensed photograph, they will be able to pursue the uploader for costs.
Click to expand...


have you even read the article you have your undies in a twist about ? :)

It wont effect me at all :)
 
KIPAX said:
have you even read the article you have your undies in a twist about ? :)
It wont effect me at all :)
Click to expand...
I've read several articles about it, some of which included interviews with copyright specialists.
Unless you're willing to give an explanation as to why it won't effect you, this is a pretty pointless discussion.

I'll leave you with a quote from a bona fide copyright lawyer, who probably knows more about this than either of us;
Nick Phillips, a copyright lawyer with Edwin Coe, told The Times: "It you're just taking a holiday snap of the Angel of the North, that's going to be non-commercial and so will be fine, but it becomes a grey area if, say, Facebook's terms and conditions give Facebook a licence to use your photograph for any purposes they like."
 
Llamaman said:
It's not the content that matters, but what you do with it. See the quote from Nick Phillips above.
Click to expand...

Realistically sounds like the publishers problem, in this case Facebook. UK courts won't uphold an unfair* contract, the T&C's which people sign up for a very rarely tested in courts because they are unfair.

*unfair has a legal definition in this context. Basically put, if one party has an army of lawyers writing the terms and the other doesn't then its unfair.
 
I went to an art fair last weekend, and there was a photographer there who was selling entirely photos he had taken of Old Trafford, Etihad and various views and statues etc outside these stadiums. I guess this is the reason behind this type of bill as the owners of such buildings would prefer that people purchased such photos from their club shops rather than 3rd parties.

The photos the guy was selling were nice and competent, but the photographer had not added and extra value to the pictures. They were pretty generic and the kind of thing anyone on this forum would take.

Personally I don't like the proposed legislation as it is an infringement on long held rights, but there is a certain irony in some photographers moaning when their copyright is infringed but profiting from photographing the creative work of others.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Realistically sounds like the publishers problem, in this case Facebook. UK courts won't uphold an unfair* contract, the T&C's which people sign up for a very rarely tested in courts because they are unfair.

*unfair has a legal definition in this context. Basically put, if one party has an army of lawyers writing the terms and the other doesn't then its unfair.
Click to expand...
Yes, what used to be the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (think they were recently reissued under a different title) are helpful towards consumers (I've used them myself in a dispute... and won), but as with so much of digital rights, the law is largely untested and so uncertain.
I would also not be relying on the UTCCR (or its replacement) as a Get-Out-Of-Jail card, especially in a situation where you will have lied (by uploading the photo you claim to own the copyright).

The point I'm trying to make is that the situation is not clear cut, and this law, if passed (which is actually unlikely at this stage) would be a legal minefield. It is totally unnecessary - architects do not rely on copyright as a significant source of income (they've not requested this), and removing Freedom of Panorama would introduce a heft of legal uncertainty and remove long-held civil liberties.
I'm normally a supporter of the EU, but they've got this one totally wrong. Regardless of whether this actually comes to pass (I suspect it'll be booted into the long grass), it should never have got to this stage.
 
Llamaman said:
I'll leave you with a quote from a bona fide copyright lawyer, who probably knows more about this than either of us;
Nick Phillips, a copyright lawyer with Edwin Coe, told The Times: "It you're just taking a holiday snap of the Angel of the North, that's going to be non-commercial and so will be fine, but it becomes a grey area if, say, Facebook's terms and conditions give Facebook a licence to use your photograph for any purposes they like."
Click to expand...

He says "if". Do Facebook, in fact, have this in their terms?
 
Sassafras said:
He says "if". Do Facebook, in fact, have this in their terms?
Click to expand...
Yes.

https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Sharing Your Content and Information You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
  1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
 
Llamaman said:
Yes.

https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Sharing Your Content and Information You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:



    • For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
Click to expand...

It's a qualified license though. It's subject to the user's privacy settings. I'm guessing that normally users only show their photos to friends. So Facebook only have a license to use your photo with friends. Which isn't likely to be commercial.

I don't know though.
 
Gary said:
Has gullibility been removed from the dictionary again?
I wouldn't panic about this just yet.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/25/pirate_mp_pranks_telegraph/
Click to expand...
The Register clearly has a personal gripe against Reda, including repeatedly mocking her age (as if age were any guarantee or preclusion to wisdom or competence).
It ignores the fact that the E.P. would be seen as advisory by the E.C. who will be looking at copyright later this year.

Basically, the Register is as full of inaccurate hyperbole as Reda's own blog. There's an apt phrase about opinions and arseholes...
 
Gary said:
Ooh harsh! Haha

I guess that you'll all be arrested soon then for taking photos outside your own homes.
Click to expand...

Yes, and inside our homes too ;)
 
Parliament voted yesterday with a big majority against any restriction of the Freedom of Panorama after over half a million signatures of the petition.
 
YoshiK1 said:
Parliament voted yesterday with a big majority against any restriction of the Freedom of Panorama after over half a million signatures of the petition.
Click to expand...


Its nice to put the two in the same sentance.. but if parliment made decisions based on an online petition then they would be incredibly gullible..
 
KIPAX said:
Its nice to put the two in the same sentance.. but if parliment made decisions based on an online petition then they would be incredibly gullible..
Click to expand...

I agree. I signed the petition but I didn't think it would help really. I thought that this would go nowhere when I first heard about it.


Signed.
 
YoshiK1 said:
Parliament voted yesterday with a big majority against any restriction of the Freedom of Panorama after over half a million signatures of the petition.
Click to expand...

I doubt anything from change(dot)org even dotted their radar.
 
I'm just going on what I read. Whether it was the petition or not it's been voted against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top